Is right and wrong just a matter of thinking something is right (e.g. it is right to save and improve lives) and something is wrong (e.g. theft, fraud, rape, robbery, enslaving, torture and murder are wrong)? Is there any way to know for sure what is right and what is wrong? Different countries have different laws. Even the same country has different laws at different times. How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

No, just thinking something is right doesn't make it right. Same with feeling something is right, which is what our morals are built upon - there is no way to say one person's feelings are right over another's, and just because a majority think of feel something, doesn't make it right either.

As a result, nothing "should" be made legal and illegal. It is just a battle of the preferences.

Veganism prevents harm and promotes the well-being of trillions of sentient organisms. Yet, more than 99% of the humans currently alive (8.24 billion) are not yet vegan. Non-vegans kill 80 billion land organisms and 1 to 3 trillion aquatic organisms per year. Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

The worst part for me is the suffering these animals go through - for many it is a living hell. It's disgusting that animal agriculture is still legal.

If only the clone were produced (with no operational shenanigans or mishaps), the clone would have the exact same identity as the person who stepped into the machine. They are subjectively the same (even if the clone is produced in a spatially separate location than where the original stepped into the machine), because they have the exact same physical structure that leads to the same mental patterns, memories and personalities. — finarfin

My argument was only that a difference in spatial location would cause the clone and the original to be different people. The difference in spatial location would cause their mental patterns and memories to be different, thus making them different people. I wasn't making a comment on which, if any of them, were "you".

I am sympathetic to the idea that through our life we are not the same person. As our mental patterns and memories change we change as a person. Otherwise you face the problem of having two of the same person walking around.

So you maintain that the clone is not the original, not because the original can see the clone walking about, but because of the seconds of time in which their experiences differ?? — hypericin

If they shared the same spatial location it would be the same person. The question is what is it about them not sharing the same spatial location that means they are not the same person.

The "gradual neural replacement" thought experiment suggests it's not material that makes us us, but our mind. If they had the same mind (including their memories), I would say they are the same person. But as a result of not sharing the same spatial location, the clone's mind will follow a different path to the original's and would thus not be the same person.

I think what makes you you is your mental patterns and memories. The material that gives rise to this is irrelevant.

Would be interesting to find a thought experiment to make me change my mind, but they all seem to result in the second subject of experience being in a different spatial location to the original subject of experience, and hence having different experience and memories, and ipso facto not being the same person.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media.

You will see that the fact itself will be the same, but its emotional superstructure - context, intonation, accents - will be radically different. It is this superstructure that shapes our attitude and consolidates opinion. This will confirm or refute the idea that emotions from news are more important than the facts themselves. — Astorre

We do see this in action. We can just look at different news sources and see how the same facts are being framed to fit each news source's agenda. As long as you read more than the headline, the BBC, Sky News, and many established newspaper in my country have a largely objective coverage.

Firstly, I will reveal that I am from England so my point of view is likely to be different due to the difference in our experiences / societal norms we are all used to in our own nations. Guns are HEAVILY restricted in the UK, and this is the main reason why England and wales have been consistent averaging 28 fatalities a year which is 0.04 / 100,000 people. USA on the other hand reportedly produces 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people. — Samlw

Your numbers are for firearm deaths. A country where guns are allowed is bound to have a higher firearm death rate than a country where they are not allowed. This doesn't mean guns cause more deaths.

The murder rate in the US is about 6 times than in our green and pleasant land of the United Kingdom
(~6.3 per 100k versus ~0.99 per 100k). The United States has manifestly got a lot of problems, making the case for prohibiting firearms stronger.

Looking for studies on the Big Lie, there was a 2025 study published in Political Science and Politics where they surveyed 130 Trump voters over three years, and looked at how the belief that the election was stolen spread. It found there was a vicious circle of "identity fusion" where those that already supported Trump were more likely to believe the Big Lie, and that the Big Lie made them even more fused with Trump, and repeat.

This coincides with what you are saying about "accumulated emotion" and rationalisation, invention and false recall to support their feelings induced stance.

Ultimately, even if there is an overwhelming amount of information, we should temper out beliefs to the amount of evidence. An overwhelming amount of information should not mean we are believing untruths.

We should find time to research the things that are important to us.

A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age. — I like sushi

I'm sceptical that experience acquired through age is as valuable as intelligence and economic literacy.

If we go down that road, shouldn't intelligence and economic literacy be taken into account. To avoid the hassle of doing tests, it could be done by standard of education?

Even giving more of a vote based on age, the less the results are what the majority prefer - there's less democracy.

I should say, that as someone that is fairly young, I could be underestimating experience acquired through age. I have been told this before, and ironically this could be something that I have to learn through experience acquired through age.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies. — I like sushi

"When asked which party they would vote for, ITV News' poll showed 33% said they would vote Labour, followed by 20% who said they’d choose Reform, while 18% would vote Green, 12% Liberal Democrats and only 10% said they’d vote Conservative".

I don't know if you'd call the little mentioned Green Party a populist party, but I take your point.

It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age?

I thought this claim was ridiculous, but then I looked it up and it turns out you were right. — T Clark

I was a bit disappointed that this wasn't incorporated into the Oppenheimer film, but the film is supposed to centre around Oppenheimer, and if it wasn't something that played on his mind...

Even the test of the the atomic bomb, which Oppenheimer named "Trinity", is estimated to have killed tens of thousands (from radiation exposure). They didn't tell people to evacuate, to keep the secrecy.

The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later.

For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it?

While it's not mentioned in the article, I think by this point he was aware of Relativity - so succession is not necessarily fixed - and can be relative to the observer.

But can't disclosure happen without revealing full knowledge of potentially destructive capabilities? Surely, they have overstepped their duty to ensure safety, and perhaps have done so for self-interested or even nefarious reasons, rather than acting in the public's interest. — schopenhauer1

Well that's the security services' job, national security, not the taking of other things into consideration. Maybe the small risk of disclosing is outweighed by the greater good of this reality altering knowledge, and we need our elected representatives to push for it.

There may only be a small risk that our enemies look to capture the technology, either by capturing their own crafts or having agents infiltrate our facilities for the knowledge to reverse engineer it. The rich and those they employ would also be after it, which could then end up with our enemies.

National Security is a solid argument; we don't want the power wielded by our enemies, and the people through their elected representatives want National Security. If it wasn't for this, the people should know what their money is being spent on - I don't think the shock would be too damaging, and would be momentary - for future generations it would be normal, and they would be living through a new enlightenment.

By the way, Three Body Problem is good. The ending left us in suspense, and the second season isn't coming out until almost a year's time.

You're welcome. I know what you mean about being pressed for time, but I had to share the article.

He says:

"It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; in fact, many of the worst difficulties in the psychology and metaphysics of time have arisen from this confusion. It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later".

He then defines his terms and goes into more detail on each of the two.

I sent the document you linked to my Kindle. Thanks. — T Clark

Got Russell on the brain at the moment. I'm starting reading his autobiography again - I think the last time I read it was around 2019.

What do you think of Bertrand Russell's views on time: https://archive.org/details/jstor-27900529/page/n21/mode/2up?view=theater

Bertrand Russell thought the same but changed his mind following Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

It studied between 2012 and 2019. So before COVID hit.

It's not just a correlation either, it was the poorest areas that were disproportionately affected, with rising death rates among vulnerable populations.

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2022/october/headline_885099_en.html

Just had a news article pop up "Young people should be encouraged more to stay away from the GP so that the sickest in society can be prioritised, Wes Streeting has said".

I know people say the rich would just run if you try to tax them, but with studies showing hundreds of thousands dying from poverty, surely it's going to have to be put to the test.

In some jurisdictions you can sue for "wrongful life" when your suffering could have been avoided had the medical professionals advised your parents of a medical condition and they not had you.

Arguably, this could be widened to suffering not caused by a medical condition, in which case the parents would be liable. There was an antinatalist in India that said he was going to file suit for it.

The poll in the OP.

Yes, I think my life is marginally bad now, and expect end of life to be horrific.

Interesting that 45% also say they with they never existed. Surely this is an argument for antinatalism.

With a better reason than 'reasonable suspicion', yes. — AmadeusD

Shouldn't this be checked by a judge to make sure government is not abusing its power?

The government would argue it's not going to be will-nilly. They are only going to do it when they have reasonable suspicion of overpayment.

Surely you trust government to get this right? They have such a good track record :roll:

I didn't know what we were arguing about, but looking back I see it now. That's my fault - I misspoke. I meant the conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the non-judicial parts of the state (namely the executive and the "independent" public bodies the executive appoints the head of).

Tories are in power for the bulk of the time. Do you believe they are more interested in providing services or cutting public spending? I would argue that their overriding interest is cutting public spending, and they are biased by this.

The stats speak for themselves:

Before appealing a PIP (disability benefit) decision to a judicial tribunal, you lodge a reconsideration request with the state - approximately 22% of the time they overturn their original decision. Of those that are then appealed to an independent judicial tribunal, approximately 70% are won by the claimant.

And you cannot go to the tribunal until they have reconsidered their decision. People go for years waiting for reconsideration - all this period without an income, and many die after being declared "fit for work" waiting for reconsideration. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state.

As @Jack Cummins has hinted to, the Department for Work and Pensions are notoriously bad.

Before appealing a PIP (disability benefit) decision to a judicial tribunal, you lodge a reconsideration request with the state - approximately 22% of the time they overturn their original decision. Of those that are then appealed to an independent judicial tribunal, approximately 70% are won by the claimant.

And you cannot go to the tribunal until they have reconsidered their decision. People go for years waiting for reconsideration - all this period without an income, and many die after being declared "fit for work" waiting for reconsideration.

You say "generally". Where do you draw the line?

The way things are done now, prior to the bill becoming law, is the government contacts the benefit claimant, demanding return of the overpayment, and failing this, issues proceedings at the local civil court. They would have to prove their case on the balance of probabilities to recover any monies.

You suggest an administrative hearing. Do you mean a hearing conducted by the judiciary, such as by way of a tribunal, or by the state itself? The problems is, in the UK the government picks the head of the other elements of the state, such as the Met Police, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ofcom, Financial Conduct Authority, National Health Service.

Yes, putting aside the arguments of government overreach, checks and balances, etc, this does disproportionately affect disabled people. People that even if they understood what was going on, are not in the financial position to spend on lawyers to fight government barristers.

I do wonder if this is an expensive draconian solution to a non-problem. Apparently it's nearly 4% of benefit expenditure is overpaid. Is that a massive problem compared to other problems? So 4/100 people get a bit more than they are entitled to? Compare that to billionaires not paying taxes. — bert1

Exactly. The Green Party have a policy of a wealth tax, and I'm very tempted by them. I usually vote Labour as the lesser of the two evils, but I'm not actually sure it is the lesser of the two evils under this leadership.

I guess you vote SNP up there in Scotland? Hopefully they give Labour a kicking at the next election.

Yes, you're spot on.

Even Reform abstained, and they're no friend of people on benefits.

It's for overpayments from error too, which is quite common.

No, the Direct Deduction Order is not a court order. It's ordered from the bank by the state.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0167/240167.pdf

You seem to be saying, "It looks like X isn't going to be high enough to justify (3), therefore we can't give them a choice." This is a bit like the father at the theme park who reasons, "My daughter wants to go on this ride, and if she goes on it she will probably enjoy it, so I can't let her go on it." This is reminiscent of the "paternalism" that schopenhauer1 claims to oppose. — Leontiskos

No, I'm not convinced that the majority of people end up preferring they had been born. On top of the people that already wish they had never been born you have those suffering at the end of life wishing they had never been born.

Considering my view that most people are likely to live net bad lives, it would be more like the daughter wanting to go on the ride (after eating lots of candyfloss), and if you let her go on it will make her sick.
It would actually be worse than this, you would be putting her on the ride and making her sick before she even had a preference on it.
@schopenhauer1 was the master of these thought experiments. Forcing people onto rides, Willy Wonka World etc :smile:

If you are talking about a poll like the one that showed 64% happy - 36% unhappy, ostensibly, the percentage of people that would rather they had never been born would be lower than the unhappy 36%, when considering things like unhappy people that prefer to have been born "otherwise they wouldn't have had their children" etc.

My same objection to the happiness poll would apply to the birth preference one though. I don't know how many of those suffering at end of life wish they had never been born.

Further, I would rather prevent a life of suffering in spite of a future person's preference. There are many people that hurt themselves, and society determines it just to thwart their preference.

Your second paragraph suggests you understand what I was getting at. Of those polled only a fraction would have been people experiencing the suffering at the end of life.

99.85% does seem rather high, but I don't think it unreasonable to determine the majority of people have net bad lives.